Ex-General/Corps Commander for making an example of Musharraf

Interesting comments about Kargil, Lal Masjid, and post 9/11.

Ex-general for making an example of Musharraf

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/images/shim.gif

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/images/shim.gif

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/images/shim.gif

Tuesday, June 03, 2008

News Desk

RAWALPINDI: Lt Gen (retd) Jamshaid Gulzar Kiyani on Monday stressed the need for making an example of President Pervez Musharraf to block the emergence of future dictators in the country.

Talking to Dr Shahid Masood in the Geo TV programme Meray Mutabiq, he said General Musharraf had committed basic mistakes such as the Kargil debacle, surrender to the US threat of pushing Pakistan into the stone age and the Lal Masjid destruction.

He said no power could stay in the face of the power of the people. He said he had seen the period of Ayub Khan, who could not face the wrath of the people. When asked whether the Army was with Musharraf, he said the armymen would never say anything about it and such things were never discussed in the Army.

He ruled out the imposition of martial law, saying that the president could not use Article 58-2(b). Gen Gulzar said Musharraf’s departure from power was close at hand. He said the president should not have given in to the US threat in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. He said the Pakistan Army was the best professional Army in the world. He said Musharraf had options at that time and he should have held a referendum to ascertain the will of the people.

Gen Gulzar said the referendum Musharraf held for himself was a fake exercise as Gen Zia did the same during his rule. He said Musharraf was clearly told about this mistake and afterwards he accepted his mistake.

He said today everybody believed that Gen Musharraf was fighting the American war on the soil of Pakistan and “we are paying for that today.” departure from power was close at hand. He said the president should not have given in to US threat in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy. He said the threat to push Pakistan into the stone age was delivered by the then secretary of state Colin Powel and not by the American president. He said the president arrested and handed over Pakistanis to the US. Where have these unknown people gone? he asked.

He asked what was the crime of Mullah Zaeef and as a diplomat did he deserve such insulting behaviour? He said the ISI was used to commit wrong acts. He said he was in the ISI and advised against such acts but his advice fell on deaf ears. As a result today Musharraf was the most unpopular president. If he had accepted the advice, he would have been the most successful president of Pakistan today.

He said suicide attacks that were beyond imagination before 9/11 are difficult to control now, he said. He said he was not a supporter of suicide attacks but these reflect an easy reaction that cannot be stopped by anyone.

He said there were suicide attacks one after the other in the wake of the Lal Masjid and the Jamia Hafsa operation. He said if there were foreign elements in Lal Masjid, where did they go? He said innocent students were targeted with phosphorus grenades, that he added come in the fold of chemical weapons. He said he had never seen such an act of tyranny. He said when a bullet crosses the body it is not a wrong use of power but that is a tyrannical act. It tantamounts to killing an ant with a hammer.

He said ex-servicemen should have come forward a long time ago but they have not been an organized body that could be activated on one call. About the economic situation, General Gulzar Kiyani termed the present period the worst when it was difficult for the poor to get even one meal.

When asked about his appointment and expulsion as Chairman Federal Public Service Commission, Gen Kiyani said the real differences started after the 9/11 episode. “After retiring from the Army on Oct 14, 2004, when I reminded General Saheb his commitment to doff his uniform during a meeting, he said that the nation needed him.”

He said it was a reaction to his policies that suicide attacks started in the country. He said force was used in South and North Waziristan and 80 students were killed in a Bajaur Madrassa in an American operation. What was the crime of these students, he asked.

He said he remained Chairman of the Public Service Commission for three years. At that time the prime minister was Jamali whose first demand was to give power of appointments in CBR and FIA to ministers. He said if this power was given to ministers they would have gotten their own way.

He said one of the two officers approved by former prime minister Shaukat Aziz faced a NAB corruption case while the other had no chance of promotion. “I requested them that this would cause great demoralisation among the bureaucracy. I humbly submitted to them that this was a wrong step but in a short period the chairman’s tenure was reduced from five to three years under the PCO to remove me.”

He expressed regret over the suicide attack outside the Danish embassy in Islamabad adding there was no conception of suicide bombings before 9/11. The policies of President Pervez Musharraf in the post-9/11 scenario led to suicide attacks in Pakistan.

Pulling the curtain off past events, Lt Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani denied a hand in the removal of Nawaz’s government on October 12, 1999. “I was major general then and I was promoted on November 1, 1999. After that I took the responsibility of corps commander Rawalpindi and successfully held the post for two years.”

Commenting on the 9/11 events of 2001, he said undoubtedly a hell was unleashed on New York but he never reconciled with the practical course President Pervez Musharraf adopted after the incident.

To a question, he said no aspersion could be cast on the loyalty of the Army and so on the corps commander. A corps commander also remains loyal to the army chief. However, different views came up at the corps commanders meetings in the wake of 9/11. Big differences emerged then. When General (retd) Musharraf asked as to what were their views to the threats of pushing Pakistan into the stone age, a difference of opinion emerged in the views of the corps commanders. It was three to four days after 9/11. Some commanders openly told Chief Executive Pervez Musharraf that they had reservations. These pertained to an outright and open support to the US. They believed that the US should not be extended support blindly. The corps commander is a professional soldier and ignoring his advice leads to losses.

Regarding the 1971 war, he said he was on the eastern border but never became a prisoner of war. He said there is no doubt that excesses were committed against the people of Bengal. He held then General Yahya Khan responsible for the same. General Niazi totally failed in East Pakistan and his role was very embarrassing which is a matter of regret.

**General (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani said according to his information Nawaz Sharif did not know anything about the Kargil episode. He was never thoroughly briefed on the same. He supported holding of a probe into the Kargil fiasco, adding factors behind the scene, about which people do not know, would also come into the limelight.

Asked what was his plan, General Kiyani said he had briefed Nawaz Sharif and told him that it was a very sensitive issue and he could not unveil all the details to him. He was only apprised of the ongoing situation. Nawaz time and again asked about the truth from senior officials including Sartaj Aziz who was the foreign minister. He also tried to persuade the chief of army staff. General Majid spoke in detail on the issue. General Mahmood was the corps commander then.

Kiyani said our Jawans (soldiers) bravely fought the Kargil War. I think they revived the memories of the 1965 war. Our officers fought more fiercely than in the 1965 War and repulsed enemy attacks time and again. Despite the fact that supplies were disrupted due to extreme cold, the Jawans continued the war. He repeated that arguments will come up when there will be a probe.

He termed Nawaz’s travel to the US a bid to save the prestige of the Pakistan Army. He said in the meeting of May 17 Nawaz gave a green signal to the operation. He assured conditional support to General Musharraf that the government would back the operation when he successfully moved forward. If unfortunately the same failed, he would not be in a position to support him (Musharraf). When the army was caught in an awkward situation, he again travelled to the US to save the symbol of the country, the Pakistan Army.**

To a question about the use of nuclear weapons in the war, General Kiyani said the war could have not been kept limited to the Kargil sector or a particular front particularly when the two countries possessed nuclear weapons.

Referring to the book authored by General Musharraf, Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani said whatever has been written there is against logic. If you catch your enemy by the jugular vein he would react with full force. If you cut enemy supply lines, the only option for him will be to ensure supplies by air. That situation the Indian Army was unlikely to confront and it had to come up to the occasion. It is against wisdom that you dictate to the enemy to keep the war limited to a certain front. After that Nawaz went to the United States. But an attempt was made to create the impression in the print media that Nawaz Sharif was at fault to surrender there. He said this impression was created by General Pervez Musharraf which was totally wrong.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=15086

[quote=“Spock”]

Ex-general for making an example of Musharraf

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/images/shim.gif

[

Spock bhaijan. Let’s hope it’s soon. Nawaz Sharif and Great Zardari are taking far too long. :)](“http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=15086”)

Re: Ex-General/Corps Commander for making an example of Musharraf

So aalsi, is that all you can parrot now?

What do you have to say about the war crimes, blunders and stupidity of your great Musharraf?

Spock bhaijan. Do you have any proof that that it was Great President Musharaf's fault? Let there be an inquiry and find out whether it was PM of the time Nawaz Sharif or the Army that once again started the a against its peace loving neighbours? I am all for an inquiry. Pakistan needs to learn to live in peace with its neighbours and if the inquiry points that Pakistan started the war, then appropriate actions need to be taken. Wouldn't you agree? :)

You have the ex-Corps commander spilling out all the facts, and you are asking me for proof? Face it boy, your leader is in alot of trouble, his own camps (from the lota league to his own corps commanders) are deserting him and speaking out against him.

This just proves, hes nothing more than a corrupt, power hungry, incompetent, and unwise ex-Army General, who screwed up big time, not only in his military career, but his political career as well. People will remember him as the zaleel dheet General they hated more than Zia.

Spock bhaijan. EX corp commanders. Amazing they kept quiet for so long. :)

Only an inquiry can prove or disprove who was wrong. Are you saying that we should not have an inquiry and bring everything out into the open. I for one would be very happy to see an inquiry. Wouldn't you? :)

I feel like I am talking to a 2nd grader here. A 'serving' corp commander wont ever say anything political or they face court martial. Army does not engage in politics, and all those corps commander that Musharraf forcefully retired, they were let go of because they didnt approve of his actions. Now either you are playing dumb, or you really didn't know, next time before making silly assertions please do some research of ask before saying such things. And if you bothered to read the article, the corps commander says in clear words that the army will never 'say' they are unhappy with the chief of the army staff.

And yes, when this bawajee Musharraf is kicked out, there will be an inquiry, thats what this corps commander said too. Who do you want to carry out an inquiry right now, that two bit doggy of Musharraf Dogar? Oh and by the way, when you do have an inquiry, I can assure you the lotaz from PML[Q] or your favourite thugs from MQM wont testify or support the president, remember that.

Spock bhaijan. This is a good one. :)

BTW, having an inquiry is good. I am certainly looking forward to it. :)

Yes, except a few crooked chief of army staffs, they have always preferred to stay out of politics, and they know very well that its tarnished their once prestigious reputation.

[quote]

BTW, having an inquiry is good. I am certainly looking forward to it. :)
[/quote]

Yeah, with Mr. Doggy, the puppet CJ of Pakistan right carrying out the inquiry right? We can also bring in that Cheema dude for presenting facts while we're at it.

Spock bhaijan. I would be delighted if the EX CJ is restored and heads up the inquiry. I am sure it won't be long before Great Zaradari restores him. Afterall, he did say that the EX CJ, along with all other PCO judges that were replaced in November will be restored very soon. :)

First of all, its CJ, not EX CJ.

[quote]

CJ is restored and heads up the inquiry. I am sure it won't be long before Great Zaradari restores him. Afterall, he did say that the EX CJ, along with all other PCO judges that were replaced in November will be restored very soon. :)
[/quote]

And no you're not, and have parroted that 50 times now. We all know you dont want that, because of the chamcha-ship. Please tell that to someone else who will fall for it.

Spock bhaijan. In my above posts, I am on the record as saying that I want an inquiry to prove or disprove the theories? Only an inquiry can prove that. Why are you against it? Don't you want to know the truth?

Where did I oppose it, I am just saying that marks like you asking for an inquiry should realize that the accused wont let an inquiry take place, ever, as he knows what will the outcome will be.

I think that General Gulzar Kiyani was paid to give interview and lie blatantly on media. If one look at what he said in his interview an think, one would find may lies and contradictions. When someone start lying and giving contradictory statements, nothing what he/she says is reliable or could be taken on face value, but has to get investigated and looked into. Everything has to have references and whatever said should be intelligently viable.

**There should be probe not only on Kargil, but Nawaz statements and Gulzar Kiyani statements too. There should be probe as Nawaz agreed to withdraw in USA from Pakistani land handing that over to India, that amounts to treason (remember, Kargil is Pakistani land like all of Kashmir, occupied by India). Even if Kashmir is disputed territory than also Pakistan occupying that land is their right but Nawaz giving it back to India was treason. India did the same on Siachin and never withdrew **

There are many lies and contradictory statements in Gulzar Kiyani interview but I am pointing out few most relevant. Nawaz says that he was not on board about Kargil operation. But general Gulzar Kiyani in his interview on GEO says that Nawaz was on board (though this general was lying left, right and centre and was contradicting his own statements many times, still he spilled the beans). Here is what he said about Thug Nawaz and his devious crooked character.

http://thenews.jang.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=15086

Just look at what Gulzar said that shows he was paid to give that interview: At one place he says:
**

**

Now if Nawaz did not knew anything than how Gulzar can also claim at other place that Nawaz was briefed? [Even if one accepts … not thoroughly … something his statements contradict … still, if he was told than he knew something].

So according to interview, Nawaz was briefed everything relevant by Gulzar Kiyani himself, still Gulzar claims that Nawaz was not briefed. How can Gulzar claim that Nawaz was not briefed anything and then claim that Nawaz was briefed. Both cannot be true. His claim is ridiculous, isn’t it?

Above statement is very revealing but quite contradictory and funny, It tells the character of Nawaz. Let see:

So, according to Gulzar Kiyani: Nawaz did gave green signal for the operation (when? On May 17, 1999).

As according to character of Nawaz, this thug gave conditional support (as Nawaz does to all who follow him … even to his party PML-N members. What is Nawaz conditional support?

True to his devious and untrustworthy character, Nawaz only supports if thing are going good and later deny that support if thing starts going bad. Nawaz is good in lying and going back on his words. He is habitual liar.

Nawaz did same regarding Kargil operation that he supported Kargil operation but when he lost everything on table in USA he started lying and denying that he gave green signal and was supporting the operation, ditching all what he should have supported … including his own green signal … but that is character of this Thug. Nawaz did same after Oct 1999 military coup. He did not stood with his party but instead of staying and supporting them, he saved his life, made a deal, ran away to Saudia, and ditched them in Pakistan. He did same after agreement that he would stay outside Pakistan for 10 years. He denied and started lying until guarantors came on surface. Lying is habit of this thug and most of his party members. They are characterless liars.

Now coming to what Nawaz went to USA for?: Gulzar Kiyani obliging Nawaz again lied: Here is what Gulzar said:

But is this general (Gulzar Kiyani) telling truth? We go to what happened in USA. There were three people in the meeting … Nawaz, Clinton and Talbot. Talbot wrote a book and spilled the bean regarding what happened there:

Now read what former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbot writes in his book**: ‘Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb’. **[If you want detail, you should find the book and read it too]

[Obviously, Musharraf could not have forced Talbot to write what he wrote … something that also gives bad image of Clinton that how he got red in anger on Pakistani Prime Minister and how Nawaz started sh*tting in his Shalwar … such that Nawaz agreed everything whatever Clinton asked him, including surrendering Pakistani land to India …

We should remember that Nawaz was not giving up Indian land but was agreeing to withdraw from Pakistani land as Kargil belongs to Pakistan just like all of Kashmir (on the other hand, Kargil was with Pakistan since 1948 until Z A Bhutto gave it to India after Shimla Agreement)].

If Nawaz was in USA to save prestige of Pak Army than instead of asking something for withdrawal, obvious is that Nawaz should be begging Clinton to stop India attacking Pakistan army so that he can ask Pakistan army to run for their life. But obviously Pakistan army was well in command of those land and Nawaz did not went to save prestige of Pak Army but when demand from USA (and world) came to withdraw, Nawaz went to USA to tell USA that Pakistan would only ask forces to withdraw if India agree to solve Kashmir issue.

That is confirmed from what Talbot wrote. According to Talbot, Talbot wrote that: Nawaz talk with Clinton was not for face saving but Nawaz wanted something from Kargil victory (something he could only have done if he did not go to USA to save prestige of Pakistan but with Pakistan military upper hand on Kargil, that he wanted to use and should have used, to get something for for that) but when Clinton gave Nawaz a good lecture, Nawaz got scared and started shi*ting in his shalwar and agreed to everything. … Worse is that, after agreeing whatever Clinton asked, Nawaz got scared to face anyone in Pakistan and wanted something to show to Pakistanis.

Other reports (that I am not including here … though if anyone wants, I can dig for reference of that too) tells that Nawaz was so scared that before leaving Pakistan, Nawaz took pledge from Clinton that USA would protect Nawaz in Pakistan** … **[and if you would start reading the press of that time, USA start warning Pakistan army that they would not tolerate any non-constitutional step in Pakistan. Please read and I am sure that if you would read, you will feel ashamed of this pathetic person called Nawaz].

http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/arch...r20040711c.html](http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2004/kashmir20040711c.html)

Clinton snubbed Sharif for linking Kargil war with Kashmir issue
11 July 2004
The Hindustan Times
Press Trust of India

**Washington: At the height of the Kargil conflict, former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told then US President Bill Clinton that he was prepared to help resolve the crisis if India committed to settle the ‘larger issue’ of Kashmir in a specific time-frame, but the American leader snubbed him saying it would amount to a ‘nuclear blackmail.’ When Sharif visited Washington in 1999 to discuss Kargil with Clinton, he insisted, ‘I am prepared to help resolve the current crisis in Kargil but India must commit to resolve the larger issue in a specific time-frame,’ former US deputy secretary of State Strobe Talbott writes in his new book Engaging India - Diplomacy, Democracy and the Bomb. ‘Clinton came as close as I had ever seen to blowing up in a meeting with a foreign leader,’ and told Sharif, ‘If I were the Indian Prime Minister, I would never do that. I would be crazy to do it. It would be nuclear blackmail. If you proceed with this line, I will have no leverage with them. If I tell you what you think you want me to say, I will be stripped of all influence with the Indians.’ ‘I am not - and the Indians are not - going to let you get away with blackmail, and I will not permit any characterisation of this meeting that suggests I am giving in to blackmail,’ Talbott writes, adding, Clinton also refuted Sharif’s accusation that the Indians were the instigators of the crisis and intransigents in the ongoing standoff. When Sharif insisted he had to have something to show for his trip to the US beyond unconditional surrender over Kargil, Clinton pointed to the dangers of nuclear war if Pakistan did not return to its previous positions. Seeing they were getting nowhere, Clinton told Sharif he had a statement ready to release to press that would lay all the blame for the crisis on Pakistan. ‘Sharif was ashen.’ ‘Clinton had worked himself back into real anger - his face flushed, eyes narrowed, lips pursed, cheek muscles pulsing, fists clenched. He said it was crazy enough for ****Sharif to have **let **his military violate the Line of Control, start a border war with India, and now prepare nuclear forces (US had received intelligence Pakistan was preparing nuclear forces for attack against India) for action,’ Talbott says in his book. ‘Sharif seemed beaten, physically and emotionally’ and denied he had given any order with regard to nuclear weaponry. Taking a break, Clinton spoke to then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee over phone and told him what had happened till then. ‘What do you want me to say?’ Vajpayee asked. ‘Nothing,’ Clinton replied, he just wanted to show he was holding firm.

Re: Ex-General/Corps Commander for making an example of Musharraf

^ if you want anyone to read that, shorten it please.

Re: Ex-General/Corps Commander for making an example of Musharraf

What a corp commandar is saying in 2008 is something the whole nation knows since 1999 that this idiot in Army house is an incompetent bigot who dismissed a government in fear of his suspension and court martial. Later on what he did in 9/11, 2002 election and the refrundum only further stamps on his inabilities.

Saleem Bhai just loves writing essays :)

Saleem bhai yeh matric ka parcha nahin hai, yeh GupShup forum hai, kuch to hum par taras khao baba

Re: Ex-General/Corps Commander for making an example of Musharraf

I'm no fan of Mushrraf, but I have serious problem these ex generals coming out now as champions of democracy. They're all opportunist crooks who deserve no respect. Where were these generals and their long marchs when Mushrraf declared martial laws, ousted and jail judges lawyers other members of civil society? Why were they not marching back then? They're all crooks, criminals & no better than Mushrraf.

I completely agree with you, these are lotas who are now speaking against Mushy probably because now they are not getting more to eat (extra desserts). To me these guys are like CJ Ch Iftikhar for whom first PCO was okay and "interest of nation" but second was not.

Re: Ex-General/Corps Commander for making an example of Musharraf

But what about people who were never serving during Musharraf's reign and were already retired, even they are speaking out against him.